About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 25
LANGUAGE
English 25
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)
was visiting an outpost in the far reaches of afghanistan. he sat down to interview capt. there. at the end of the interview, he realized that capt. in that isolated outpost in afghanistan, because of this hyper connectivity had access to more intelligence and more firepower than martin dempsey did when he took baghdad from saddam hussein. that has driven his whole education of the army system. at the camp, they give every new recouped and iphone and you download the application and teach the class. when you have a commander in the outpost of afghanistan with more power -- more firepower and access to intelligence than you did when he commanded the troops who took baghdad, that commander has to be trained to invent, reinvent, and adapt so much more than anyone can -- anyone 10, 15, 20 years ago. that's happening throughout the labor market. what does it mean for education? >> it means we have to educational challenges today. we need more education in better education. buy more education, and this is a challenge all of the face, we need to bring the bottom up to our average and we need to do
panetta went to iraq and afghanistan. he did not go to pakistan. i take that as a strong message. it is easy when you're in that region to attack on an extra couple of days for an important ally. i think that cross the minds of everyone who planned the trip. it was clearly a conscious decision not to go to pakistan. i think that is in part because when osama bin laden was killed on may 2 there was a list of things that we would ask the pakistan's to do, the pakistani to do, and i have not acted on any of them. this administration also put a hold on a $10 million in assistance. a great way to resolve that is sending the defense secretary to talk to folks about what is going on, but he did not. you are seeing already how differently the pentagon will treat allies in the region. "the in this morning's financial times" they had this headline -- guest: the withdrawal deadline is aggressive. they're talking about getting half of the troops out during the prime fighting season. they do not fight as much during the wintertime. we are starting to withdraw troops during a tumultuous situat
to afghanistan. we were out of the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and settled in waziristan and pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this encounter terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground at the cost we are paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] and i am here to tell you that the future of the u.s. is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the u.s., whether you want to recognize it or not, is going to be determined by how well prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive century, and that battle is going to be waged across the ocean. as you walk off of this building, i want you to remember why we are in this race. it is about the generation behind us and the condition they will find our nation in. the debt trajectory that we are on. and number two, the reality of launching a new industrial revolution, it is within our grasp. it has happened before in our nation's history. problem-solving people can do it again. we need leadership and a game plan.
it comes to discussing the merits of continuing our efforts in afghanistan, the republicans clamor to defend it despite our fiscal mess. i want to remind my republican friends the situation we are in now is not new. throughout history from rome to the ottoman empire to the soviet union the over extension of military and protracted struggles in foreign countries has crippled empires. some historians have credited ronald reagan for the soviet union's collapse but what really bankrupted the soviet union was its wars, just like us, they paid a crushing price both financially and morally in afghanistan. overextending geopolitically comes at a cost over time in any nation that thinks otherwise is setting itself up to repeat the mistakes of the past. as of today, the united states has spent more than 2 1/2 times the percentage of g.d.p. on afghanistan that the -- than the soviet union spent on its g.d.p. during its nine-year war in afghanistan. public polls are clear, americans know the cost of the war in afghanistan is unsustainable and want us to withdraw as soon as possible. when it co
airborne division which is located along the afghanistan border with pakistan. then a discussion about the 2012 presidential campaign with a focus on the grounds an early primary states as well as the republican presidential field. >> today, the dalai lama and vincent harding talk about non violence. they spoke to more than 10,000 people at the university of arkansas discussing osama bin laden's death, the nuremberg trials, the execution of saddam hussein, and the death penalty. >> in the 20th-century, the number of people were killed and three violence, over 200 million. that problem must be solved. there is also exploitation and we should lay down the seat of hatred course watched this discussion this evening at 6:30 on c-span. what's it look back at president nixon's foreign-policy. members of his administration and his son-in-law discussed topics including communism in china, invading north vietnam and the war in the middle east. >> the discussion in the newspapers were nixon's secret plan for peace. rockefeller did not think that nixon had a plan. he comes in after a hard day camp
at the borders, ports, afghanistan, iraq, police, and our departments by harnessing that american spirit so that we can become a more resilient nation. we are going to be dealing with this sort of threat for the perceivable future, for a couple of generations. you have summed it up very well. we need to confront the risk and overcome it. the executive committee in committee leaders will need to establish overarching policy for the national governors association. following that meeting, the committee will begin work to consolidate, revise, and align our policies for the priorities set by the executive committee. it is our hope that we will be but to build a consensus around key principles, like resilience, that can guide our advocacy efforts and better inform not only our federal lawmakers of the issues but do a better job of informing our citizens of the things that we can do as a free people to make our homeland more secure. the executive committee, we have agreed to allow all policies up for consideration for new policies and process, whatever that means, and we will discuss it at that ti
a reason why we are in iraq and libya and afghanistan. but having said that, let's face it, it would be ridiculous to assume that i'm making an appeal for democrats when what i'm talking about is those people who are vulnerable. because of our financial center cause people to lose their homes, it wasn't just democrats, there were democrats, republicans, independents, and those that have no faith in government that woke up in the morning, they lost their jobs, they lost their home, they lost their pension funds, they lost their savings, they had to pull their kids out of school, they lost their self-esteem, some lost their homes. i don't remember anywelfare reform we are talking about people that are registered democrats. these are americans that are expected -- that expected more from their government than just saying that we will be able to address your deeds in the by and by. and the very people that are aged, god knows we are not talking about a party label. we are talking about our sick or we are talking about medicaid, we are talking about medicare, when we talk about social sec
? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requ
. one of the things that we are involved in his capacity building. we have officers in afghanistan, iraq, several others able to train and a buildup that capacity. if we are not doing enough, please get me the information. we are very interested in that type of build up, capacity building, so that it will help with your homeland and hours also. we are very much interested in that. on the invasive nista to talk about, anything that we do within dhs, we have an entity called civil rights, civil liberties. it reviews every activity that we undertake, that we are planning to undertake, and that we are looking to move toward so that when we do take action, we take into account the civil rights in civil liberties that are of the highest interests of all of us who have historically worked this type of effort. the amount of equipment out there is tremendous. it helps dramatically. we are very sensitive to that and base of this and want to make sure that we get the job done, making sure that the rights and liberties of our citizens are not in pain is. >> first of all, thank-you. we wish you the b
of the american people. >> mr. speaker, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is in afghanistan and was asked by a number of soldiers whether they were going to get their checks next week. how can you allow them to wonder whether they are going to get paid? >> we will be able to come to an agreement. >> if we could have had this with a bipartisan agreement? >> it could have been finished early this past week. there was a bipartisan agreement between myself and the leaders to move the underlying bill through the house yesterday. all the president had to do was say yes and it would have moved quickly through both the house and the senate. we wasted a week that we did not need to waste. now we have been driven into this and the president has to decide how we will get out of it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, we are dealing with a reasonable and as possible people that want this crisis to end as quickly as possible. >> let me add, the country is not going to default for the first time in history. that is not going to happen. we have a level of seriousness with the
but other nations throughout the world. we have officers deployed in afghanistan and iraq and several other countries throughout the world to do just that, to train and to build up that capacity. if your feelings are that we are not doing enough, please give me the information because we're very interested in that type of build up of capacity-building said that it will help protect your homeland and our homeland also. we would very much -- we would be very much interested in that. on the screen and intrusiveness, one of the things you would be interested in is that everything and anything we do within dhs and certainly cdp is an entity within dhs, the civil rights and civil liberties, but we're -- that reviews every activity that we undertake, that we're planning to undertake, and that we are looking to move toward, to ensure that what which is that when we do take actions, we take into account the civil rights and civil liberties that are of the highest trenches of the secretary and all of us that have historically worked this type of effort. the amount of equipment out there is tremendous
is in afghanistan. he was asked by soldiers whether they will get their checks next week. how can you allow these soldiers to wonder whether they will be paid? >> the senator and i are both confident that we are going to be able to come to some agreement with the white house and and this impasse -- and end this impasse. >> [inaudible] with a bipartisan agreement next door? >> we could have had this finished early this week. there is a bipartisan agreement between myself and the senate leaders to move the underlying bill that we moved to the house yesterday. all the president had to do was say yes. that bill would have moved quickly through the house and senate. we have wasted a week that we did not need to waste. we have been driven into this cul-de-sac and it is time for the president to decide how we are going to get out of it. >> what gives you confidence? >> in spite of our differences, we are dealing with reasonable, responsible people who want to this crisis to end as quickly as possible. i am confident we will. >> let me just add, you know, our country is not going to default for the
billion on katrina. in afghanistan we spend $325 billion -- million a day and in iraq we've spent about $100 million a day. that's almost $1 billion a day. we're talking about $950 -- almost $1 billion in light rail. we can both be right and smart and compassionate if we do the right thing. in our budgeting process we should have an unexpected fund for unforeseen circumstances, we should have learned from katrina. we're looking at probably about $4 billion in term of army corps of engineers. i think our leaderships need to get together and just say that we can do this without fighting among each other, without making each other wrong. because that's wrong. in the eyes of the public, they want us to do the job that needs to get done and have our leadership do that. and so my plea is that we can be fiscally responsible and we can be compassionate and we do that with good planning and good budgeting process, including having contingency funds that should have been there. and so we have an opportunity right now to show the public that we can do all these things and still come out winners fo
's watched did that occur? under whose watch did we have wars in afghanistan that we started? under his watch, the economy faltered that we had to rescue it from going off of a cliff. republicans are equally responsible if not more responsible than democrats for the situation we are in now. host: when the democrats had control, why didn't they raise taxes? guest: i agreed that raising taxes on people making over $250,000 was a good idea. obama introduced a budget that called for that. by the end of 200010, -- 2010, the tax cuts were going to expire. there was a situation where the economy could get even worse. we will not extend a tax cuts for the middle class. if you do that, extend it for the rich. -- and he said, i will sacrifice to reach a compromise. he has shown that willingness many times over. host: republican line, for lauderdale florida. caller: i am very fearful of something going on with the politics of the united states into the discussion going on now. i see the democratic party developing what i call. you elect me, and i will get other people's money and take care of your probl
on the home of someone serving in a rack or afghanistan. -- in iraq and afghanistan. host: why did they see this as an area that need to be filled? guest: the problem has been wrapped up in the general difficulties. it turns out a lot of homes have gone into -- a lot of people have gone into default of mortgages. some companies are better than others at collecting monthly payments and keeping track of paperwork. the ones have proved not to be so good at it have caught service members in the riptide. we have not gotten your payment, we over charge them. foreclosure. that sort of thing going on. this has been a politically embarrassing process of writing wrongs done against members of the military in active duty. host: gym as white as a deployed serviceman and against paying his mortgage -- jim asked why a deployed servicemen against paying his mortgage? guest: he is not exempt against paying his mortgage. is exempt against being foreclosed on. as it has been explained to me, a service member might be in the field for a week or two and have virtually no contact with the outside work force the
with a situation like 9/11 or the war in iraq or afghanistan are terrorism? what if there is unforeseen event that would force government to spend more money than it takes an? guest: the legislation would have to be written to be including situations when we get like that. i am no expert on the u.s. economy so i want to put that disclaimer out there right now. but we are spending more than we're taking in and it is not sustainable. we cannot continue down this path. when you have the medicare board of trustees coming out in the month of may and releasing a report that says, if medicare is not reformed in 2024, it will be bankrupt, it is irresponsible for washington not to do anything about their when you know you are facing this problem. we need to deal with that. we need to do some entitlement reform across the board. we cannot balance the u.s. budget by cutting discretionary spending. host: i realize that this is still coming together so the information continues to evolve. but based on what we hear this morning, it is a $1.4 trillion increase in the debt limit immediately. based on misinfo
of iraq and afghanistan, it would take a serious look out of social security and medicare and in many cases contributing to this deficit. and it would say that those who benefit from ethanol subsidies and oil company tax breaks, the wealthiest people in this country would have to pay a little bit more to pay their fair share. something like that is what should be on the floor here this afternoon because it can pass, the president can sign it and it can solve the fiscal problems of this country or take us in the right direction. but we don't have something like that. instead we have a plan that says the following and puts it in the constitution, the guy who runs an ethanol company who gets massive public subsidies can make profits is completely left alone. he doesn't have to do anything. but for the woman who cleans his office at night is going to have to pay more to go to college, more for health care for herself, her children and her parents and more for just about anything she wants in her life. there's something wrong with that picture. sacrifice that is broadly shared is needed in
and afghanistan. if before the newspaper announced it was closing, members of the british house of commons held an emergency debate on wednesday to discuss whether a full public inquiry was needed to look into the phone hacking. you're the first hour of that debate with remarks by the british attorney general and the labor spokesman for home affairs. >> we come to the emergency debate on phone hacking at the news o >> the housethe house will obsen the light of interest, i have imposed a seven minute limit on the back bench contributions. it'll take effect after the contributions. it'll depend on early contributions. to open the debate, i call mr. bryan's. in were hacked by the news of the world. >> one family member spoke today. another has been in touch with me and several others. the police are looking at not dust wireless phones of these families but the family of mcca hn.the charge is even longer. this is particularly worrying given the long third trial. scandalously, it also seems it targeted some of those police officers who were at various times in charge of the investigation into the ne
that they're bringing back, they are companies specifically going after returning iraq and afghanistan veterans to be able to hire them. it was interesting, we were talking about drilling and you go into a drilling platform and they say their favorite people to be able to hire are tank drivers returning from the war zone because they're used to driving equipment, looking on a screen and dealing with multiple things all at once. these are folks employing our veterans and they're engaged in providing great jobs. i was on a fracking site, being able to watch it. it's high tech job, people on computers, as well as people in pumping, trucks, people providing food, people providing the equipment, it's people with big wrenches and people with small computers. and you see this multitude of different jobs provided by oil and natural gas and by fossil fuels we're producing right here in america. we are at a moment that we can either say, we want all green jobs, we want to destroy the jobs producing fossil fuels, or we can say, let's do both. let's encourage the growth of green jobs but let's not
of every six department of defense dollars is going to afghanistan. we got the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and sent into western pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this is a counter-terror exercise. we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground of the cost we're paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] thank you. i am here to tell you the future of the united states is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the united states is going to be determined by how well-prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive 21st century. that battle will be waged across the pacific ocean. we have some work to do. as you walk out of this building, i want you to remember why we're in this race. it is because it is about the generation and we're about to pass the country to and the condition in which they will find it. my priorities will be debt and spending. we have no choice. trajectory we're on is unsustainable. launching a new industrial revolution is within our grasp. it has happened
of iraq and afghanistan. today we just voted h.r. 2650 to, in fact, establish a club of losers for these patriots who have served their country. what a shame. what a shame. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? without objection. mr. scalise: mr. speaker, the house finally passed a real plan that addresses this nation's spending crisis. i think many american families know that washington has a spending problem because they have been living within their means. they have wen been trying to figure out to do what what they've got. and we passed a plan that actually would cut, cap and balance and controls spending in washington. and what's the president's plan? we have still yet to hear his plan. we hear speeches and class warfare where the president puts one part of america against the other. if he confiscated every dollar, it wouldn't address the problem. it's time to get real. if the president wants to get serious about addressing the spending problems, it's time to confront what cut, cap and balance does and tell washingt
to die. these needs last long after the last american combat ants depart iraq and afghanistan. this motion to recommit would simply protect our veterans from any potential unintended consequence resulting from this ill-conceived bill, the so-called cut, cap and balance act. the needs of america's veterans should be one of our highest priorities and this motion will ensure that our veterans are taken care of and that they receive the benefits they have earned. let's be clear, the passage of this motion to recommit will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. this amendment is adopted, it will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. so though we may disagree on the bill, today we have the opportunity with this motion to recommit and my amendment to speak with one voice in support of our veterans. it is up to all of us, i urge you to vote yes on this motion to recommit. but let's make sure that if this bill as its -- passes, the cut, cap and balance and any balanced budget will not result in a reduction of veterans benefits. vote yes on
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)